Approval numbers for proposals

Bears Armed

28-03-2009, 15:17

Now that the number of Delegates has dropped significantly, should the proportion of them whose approval is needed to get a proposal to quorum be increased again -- say to 10% -- to improve the process's "filtering" effect?

Quintessence of Dust

28-03-2009, 15:42

Although I assume the admins have more pressing concerns, I think this is a good idea.

Urgench

28-03-2009, 17:09

I'm definitely in favour of this, a few really dodgy resolutions have come dangerously close to quorum, and though I know there are a lot of dedicated players who weed out the illegal ones there's always the possibility that a real doozy will slip through the net.

Coryd

28-03-2009, 17:18

Good idea.

Yelda

28-03-2009, 18:24

I think it's a great idea, assuming it wouldn't require a major re-coding. The percentage could always be adjusted later if the number of delegates goes back up.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

28-03-2009, 19:42

I agree with everyone else. Just call me Cluichstan.

Sionis Prioratus

29-03-2009, 03:15

I do also think that when, in the voting phase, a proposal reaches (affirmative or negative) 50% + 1 of the entire WA membership (that would be 5,065 votes as of now), so as to not to clog the proposal queue, such proposal should immediately considered passed (or defeated) "by acclamation" and automatically give way to the next proposal in queue.

Please discuss.

p.s.: I do also think that the passing threshold for Repeals should be higher. Numbers 55%, 56%, and 60% come to mind.

Flibbleites

29-03-2009, 04:59

I do also think that when, in the voting phase, a proposal reaches (affirmative or negative) 50% + 1 of the entire WA membership (that would be 5,065 votes as of now), so as to not to clog the proposal queue, such proposal should immediately considered passed (or defeated) "by acclamation" and automatically give way to the next proposal in queue.

But the entire WA membership can't approve proposals, only the delegates can.

Sionis Prioratus

29-03-2009, 05:05

Oh yes, I know. I was talking about the phase after delegate approval, when it comes to a full vote before the WA membership.

About the delegate phase, my only comment is concurring that the delegate bar should be raised.

Charlotte Ryberg

29-03-2009, 16:10

I will support an increase. However Ms. Harper notes that doing so will increase the difficulty of getting good resolutions into vote.

Urgench

29-03-2009, 16:15

Oh yes, I know. I was talking about the phase after delegate approval, when it comes to a full vote before the WA membership.

This would mean that numerous resolutions would only pass with 51% of the vote leaving them open to the charge that they weren't that popular and were divisive. We already have fools insisting that a resolution should be repealed because they were unpopular based on more than 60 or 70% of the vote.

Anyway the queue is hardly overflowing with excellent resolutions which must be brought to vote as soon as possible.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

29-03-2009, 17:57

I do also think that when, in the voting phase, a proposal reaches (affirmative or negative) 50% + 1 of the entire WA membership (that would be 5,065 votes as of now), so as to not to clog the proposal queue, such proposal should immediately considered passed (or defeated) "by acclamation" and automatically give way to the next proposal in queue.You're not aware that delegates have more than one vote, are you? How can we possibly divine how all the delegate votes will sway? Besides, when was the last time we even had 5,000 votes cast on a resolution?

This can all be discussed in a separate thread, I'm assuming. This topic is about raising the number of required approvals for quorum.

Sionis Prioratus

30-03-2009, 00:57

You're not aware that delegates have more than one vote, are you? How can we possibly divine how all the delegate votes will sway? Besides, when was the last time we even had 5,000 votes cast on a resolution?

This can all be discussed in a separate thread, I'm assuming. This topic is about raising the number of required approvals for quorum.

I am aware, mighty Kennyite. I had the delegate's approval list monitored during the most part of #39's process.

I agree this concern of mine could be talked about in another topic.

My concern continues about the delegate bar, though. Most specially in the light of the catastrophic Delegate approval of that one repeal now being discussed (and which took my own's place at the queue, btw). I think 8,5% is perfectly achievable by a sane and competent campaigner/author. 10% is way over the top, unless the approval window widens.

Sionis Prioratus

30-03-2009, 00:59

I will support an increase. However Ms. Harper notes that doing so will increase the difficulty of getting good resolutions into vote.

I agree with Ms. Harper. It is a double-edged sword, but I think we could come to grips with it.

Sionis Prioratus

30-03-2009, 01:10

This would mean that numerous resolutions would only pass with 51% of the vote leaving them open to the charge that they weren't that popular and were divisive. We already have fools insisting that a resolution should be repealed because they were unpopular based on more than 60 or 70% of the vote.

You misunderstand, dear Khan. What I'm saying is that IF an affirmative or negative result of a resolution reach 50%+1 of the 10,000 or so totals, voting should immediately end ("by acclamation"), and give way to the next, should there be one. If such results do not reach 50%+1 of the 10,000 or so totals (certainly, most would fit here), normal due process would ensue, the result with most votes at the normal voting end-time is proclaimed.

Just a minor tweak, not some groundbreaking shake-up.

Quintessence of Dust

30-03-2009, 01:13

I think 8,5% is perfectly achievable by a sane and competent campaigner/author. 10% is way over the top, unless the approval window widens.
1.5% = 13 delegates. How does requiring 13 more delegates qualify as "way over the top"?

Or, to put it another way, do you have anything to suggest preferring 8.5% to 10% isn't the same as preferring blue snorkels to 10%?
You misunderstand, dear Khan. What I'm saying is that IF resolutions reach 50%+1 of the 10,000 or so totals, voting should immediately end ("by acclamation"), and give way to the next, there should be one. If one resolution does not reach 50%+1 of the 10,000 or so totals (certainly, most would fit here), normal due process would ensue, the result with most votes at the normal voting end-time is proclaimed.
I publicly commit myself that if any resolution ever reaches 50+1% of the total WA members, I will eat my own face.

Unibot

30-03-2009, 01:19

Anyway the queue is hardly overflowing with excellent resolutions which must be brought to vote as soon as possible.

If something passes? Doesn't that mean that it was "excellent" enough?

Raising the bar is just spitting on what little class the system has already.

People are just afraid some joke proposal will get through,
but if a joke proposal does get passed,
shouldn't the people get what they wanted?

Personally I disagree with the Quorum system entirely, I think it undermines the way NationStates is ideologically distributed.

For example,

Player A creates a region for environmentalists, YAH!
The region becomes full of WA activists, YIPPI! Hurrah!
A WA proposal on Cleaner Air comes to Quorum.
Many of NationStates's environmentalists are in this one popular region, represented by only one delegate.
The proposal fails to reach quorum, because many of the potential voters were all represented by one delegate...not 57, there was only one.

While the overall number of players has diminished, I think it's fair to say that the percentage of active WA delegates who give a damn about the proposal queue has stayed fairly constant throughout the years.

When we had 120,000 active nations, it was too high. Now that we're around 50K, it's too low. I'm just not seeing it.

The biggest change lately is that I've been distracted and haven't been cleaning the proposal queue. Talk Ardchoille into being more proactive, or convince Hack or Hotrodia to take a more active role, and your problem is solved.

Sionis Prioratus

30-03-2009, 01:55

do you have anything to suggest preferring 8.5% to 10% isn't the same as preferring blue snorkels to 10%?

Since you asked, on second thoughts, I prefer blue snorkels ;)

Ardchoille

30-03-2009, 02:12

Talk Ardchoille into being more proactive, or convince Hack or Hotrodia to take a more active role, and your problem is solved.

Orright, orright, already! I'll go do it now! Like I don't have enough to do with the ... er ... with the ... um ... with ...

well, I was busy doing ...

:$

Well, what about the washing-up, eh? And whose turn is it to take out the bins?

Frisbeeteria

30-03-2009, 02:22

Orright, orright, already! I'll go do it now! Like I don't have enough to do with the ... er ... with the ... um ... with ...

Thanks. I know your efforts will be appreciated.

Three or four years of reading Silly Proposals can wear a fella down. Particularly wearing are those awful Education proposals, which, without fail, are chock-a-block full of typos and grammatical horror stories. The really wearing part is that most of them don't overtly break any rules, and have to be left alone.

One of these days I'll talk [violet] into adding a 'Burn Without Reading' choice, so delegates have the power to remove those Horrid Examples without mod intervention. Even if we required 15% of active Delegates to Burn them, I think we'd revitalize Delegate interest in monitoring the queue.

(Now if we could only force each deleted proposal to automatically install and activate a spell checker on the target player's computer, life would be good.)

Unibot

30-03-2009, 03:04

One of these days I'll talk [violet] into adding a 'Burn Without Reading' choice, so delegates have the power to remove those Horrid Examples without mod intervention. Even if we required 15% of active Delegates to Burn them, I think we'd revitalize Delegate interest in monitoring the queue.

I actually really like that idea. Except I'd make it more like 20% or 25%.

Oh, and I'd speculate that a new dimenision of the game would come out of it...

Proposal Raiders!

Who attempt to burn the highest of quality proposals. A virtual Fahrenheit 451.

Oh baby!

Omigodtheykilledkenny

30-03-2009, 03:53

While the overall number of players has diminished, I think it's fair to say that the percentage of active WA delegates who give a damn about the proposal queue has stayed fairly constant throughout the years.Not really, I'd say the number of active delegates nowadays is proportionally greater than it was a year ago, since it's the inactive ones more likely to disappear from the game.

The biggest change lately is that I've been distracted and haven't been cleaning the proposal queue. Talk Ardchoille into being more proactive, or convince Hack or Hotrodia to take a more active role, and your problem is solved.That's all well and good, if we're only talking about illegal proposals. What about the usual drek that's not necessarily illegal, but naturally falls off the list by itself? It's making it to vote now (www.nationstates.net/page=un), likely without a single telegram being sent.

Raising the number of required approvals to 86 shouldn't be too much of a bother to those willing to set aside time for telegramming.

EDIT:One of these days I'll talk [violet] into adding a 'Burn Without Reading' choice, so delegates have the power to remove those Horrid Examples without mod intervention. Even if we required 15% of active Delegates to Burn them, I think we'd revitalize Delegate interest in monitoring the queue. ...although, that's not a bad idea either.

Flibbleites

30-03-2009, 05:02

You're not aware that delegates have more than one vote, are you? How can we possibly divine how all the delegate votes will sway? Besides, when was the last time we even had 5,000 votes cast on a resolution?Probably back in the UN days.

Thanks. I know your efforts will be appreciated.

Three or four years of reading Silly Proposals can wear a fella down. You're preaching to the choir here.

One of these days I'll talk [violet] into adding a 'Burn Without Reading' choice, so delegates have the power to remove those Horrid Examples without mod intervention. Even if we required 15% of active Delegates to Burn them, I think we'd revitalize Delegate interest in monitoring the queue. You know, this is my most wanted feature. To hell with revamping influence and screw stripping founders of their power, let the delegates delete proposals.

Oh and Fris, 1 day ago: The Frisbeeterian WA Spokesmodel of Gnomewatchers ceased to exist.

Ardchoille

30-03-2009, 05:24

The really wearing part is that most of them don't overtly break any rules, and have to be left alone.

Yeah, that's the killer. You trudge through every word, your finger hovers over the delete button, and then ... oh, damn, no legal reason ... Couldn't we just start this new deletion category, "Mod Provocation"? :tongue:

One of these days I'll talk [violet] into adding a 'Burn Without Reading' choice, ...

You misunderstand, dear Khan. What I'm saying is that IF an affirmative or negative result of a resolution reach 50%+1 of the 10,000 or so totals, voting should immediately end ("by acclamation"), and give way to the next, should there be one. If such results do not reach 50%+1 of the 10,000 or so totals (certainly, most would fit here), normal due process would ensue, the result with most votes at the normal voting end-time is proclaimed.

Just a minor tweak, not some groundbreaking shake-up.

I post O.O.C around here by the way ;) Sorry if my sig gives the wrong impression.

Still the queue isn't really that long and I don't see the benefit of having votes acclaimed on 51% when there isn't that huge a queue to start with.

What's the rush ?

Urgench

30-03-2009, 16:47

Yeah, that's the killer. You trudge through every word, your finger hovers over the delete button, and then ... oh, damn, no legal reason ... Couldn't we just start this new deletion category, "Mod Provocation"? :tongue:

I'm not sure there would be many complaints if you just went ahead and pressed delete :eek: I know, I know it's a slippery slope and it'll all end with mods bugging our bedrooms and torturing our pets in to denouncing us as running dogs e.t.c. but a little bit of Mod totalitarianism is good for the soul, or so I've heard anyway...... :D

Flibbleites

30-03-2009, 19:55

I post O.O.C around here by the way ;) Sorry if my sig gives the wrong impression.

You can disable your sig from showing up in individual posts. Just uncheck the "Show your signature" box in the additional options.

Urgench

31-03-2009, 12:54

You can disable your sig from showing up in individual posts. Just uncheck the "Show your signature" box in the additional options.

Yeah I normally try to remember to do that Flib, but It slips my mind some time :p

Charlotte Ryberg

31-03-2009, 18:51

There's an approve button, so why can't we have a veto button. That would be interesting so silly proposals with enough smites get removed at the next update.

There should be an easy to read list of WA proposals, perhaps on the main page so we delegates do not have to click page by page to find them.

Unibot

31-03-2009, 19:11

There should be an easy to read list of WA proposals, perhaps on the main page so we delegates do not have to click page by page to find them.

A good idea. I don't think many new delegates know about the proposals page, or about their duties.

Having it on the main page, would help to solve that.

Ardchoille

01-04-2009, 10:11

There's an approve button, so why can't we have a veto button. That would be interesting so silly proposals with enough smites get removed at the next update.

[CENSORED REGION NAME], are you listening ... :tongue:

Greatly though I'd love to see players winnowing the proposal crop, how long do you think it would take before groups organised to take out perfectly legal proposals of which they disapproved?

Unibot

01-04-2009, 13:51

Greatly though I'd love to see players winnowing the proposal crop, how long do you think it would take before groups organised to take out perfectly legal proposals of which they disapproved?

I'd give them a week.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

01-04-2009, 16:16

Which is why I'm a little leery about giving delegates unfettered power to vote down perfectly legal proposals. It will make it harder to telegram for proposals when delegates who don't like receiving telegrams could visit the page just to vote against out of spite.

If they're going to be given authority to remove proposals from the queue (or least to vote on removing proposals), they should have to give a valid reason for their vote. There could be a drop-down menu listing all sorts of deletable offenses, along with other non-deletable offenses, like "spamming my tg box," "blocker resolution," "too many repeals," "Fris smells funny," or even "I don't like the proposing nation." Only valid votes would count. Besides, if voting against proposals were more of a chore, fewer spiteful delegates would attempt it. :tongue:

Unibot

01-04-2009, 17:16

Which is why I'm a little leery about giving delegates unfettered power to vote down perfectly legal proposals. It will make it harder to telegram for proposals when delegates who don't like receiving telegrams could visit the page just to vote against out of spite.

I don't know, Proposal Raiders would be just as annoying as Raiders for the victums,
and it would be quite hard to Proposal Raid, there would have to be some interesting strategies utilized.

You'd have to create very small regions united to your cause, and have the raiders vote in a delegate for each region (the regions would be 2 people probably). To get the votes neccessary you'd have to have a very large raider force.

It'd be pretty difficult to do legally, and no doubt would spur a proposal defender movement because these small regions would be easy to attack.

Naivetry

03-04-2009, 01:22

Gatesville (I don't believe in censorship :p ) would do it in a heartbeat... though they may be too small these days to manage. *pokes Gatesville provocatively and waits for the dragon to awake*

In fact, I could see it now: a whole army of Gatesville colonies - independent farmsteads, they could be called - created and kept for the purpose, and defended individually by the Gatesville Guard. Puppet regions, instead of puppet nations. "Proposal defenders" would either be military raiders, seeking to destroy the farmsteads, or people who made puppet regions of their own... and in fact, raiders could become the new good guys of NS, protecting the WA from the ravages of Gatesville. :p

Seriously, any new "proposal raiding" activity that followed the institution of a veto would probably come from newer players. The idea doesn't bother me, but I'm not highly invested in the WA. I would think authors of legitimate proposals would be more worried about possible veto abuse... no?

Quintessence of Dust

03-04-2009, 16:28

Not at all. So long as the veto level isn't set too low, I'd love - both as a delegate and a proposal writer - to have some screening power. Besides, one would hope a legitimate proposal would garner legitimate approvals, making it immune from auto-deletion.

Unibot

03-04-2009, 21:40

Well there would have to be a limit, for example if a proposal had more than 3% of delegates voting for it, it could not be deleted by the community.

Because I would say if a proposal has half of the votes necessary to reach quorum, it doesn't deserve to be deleted.

Flibbleites

03-04-2009, 23:31

Well there would have to be a limit, for example if a proposal had more than 3% of delegates voting for it, it could not be deleted by the community.

Because I would say if a proposal has half of the votes necessary to reach quorum, it doesn't deserve to be deleted.

I've got three words for that claim, "Max Barry Day."

Unibot

03-04-2009, 23:45

Hey! I liked "Max Barry Day".... :)

Ardchoille

04-04-2009, 00:08

... The idea doesn't bother me, but I'm not highly invested in the WA. I would think authors of legitimate proposals would be more worried about possible veto abuse... no?

^This. Many players who aren't in the least interested in the formal dances of the WA are delegates for gameplay or political reasons. To expect them to be able to pick a legit proposal from a shocker is unfair.

Then, too, delegates who do understand the intricacies can sometimes find themselves forced by their region to endorse something they know is illegal.

It's possible to write a proposal that looks completely kosher, but ain't: there's one (possibly two, I have to check) in the queue right now. It's also possible to write legit ones that look all wrong because they're not in formal style, or their wording is unusually direct -- remember Ambassador Glog's excellent work?

The idea of players having some kind of active veto to get rid of proposals, as opposed to the passive one of not endorsing them and letting them die automatically, is appealing. It's more involving and underlines the importance of the Delegacy, which makes gaining that position a bigger prize.

But how could it be done fairly without obliging all Delegates to be WA mavens? Remembering that successful WA resolutions have gameplay effects, how would you prevent the ones that would throw sand in the works of the game's mechanics?

I'm guessing that situation would still be a matter of mod veto if a dud proposal has survived the player veto -- it's sort of pushing the queue sweep up a notch -- but how do you avoid the opposite dilemma, where a legal proposal gets player-axed?

It seems to me that's just pushing the final vote down a notch, which would make the Assembly debate superfluous (and what's the WA without debate?)

Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea and now's definitely the time to be discussing it; as you can see from several other threads, the admins have been asking for ideas. Thing is, they have to be do-able ideas.